Historical “memory”

Noting a post elsewhere, I thought that perhaps it might be interesting to take a deeper look at what it means when one says “Civil War Memory.” However, before getting to “Civil War Memory,” it might be best to start off with basic historical “memory.”

Historical “memory” is an interesting thing to consider. Specifically, I’m interested in the way that people “remember” (aka, “memory”) both events that occured and people who lived outside the time of their own lifetime, and within the first three centuries since English colonization of North America. “Memory” may not be the most accurate word I can use to define this interest… or maybe it is.

It may not be the most accurate word because, to some people, it suggests something that isn’t possible, especially within the parameters of history that I have defined as my area of study. How, for example, can I say that I have any “memory” whatsoever of the Civil War? Since I did not experience the war, sensory memory is not possible. I can have neither short-term or long-term memory of the war as a result of a “realized” witness-type experiences. I have no “living” or, more accurately, no “autobiographical memory” of the war.

Then again, “memory” may be an accurate word to use because “memory” of the Civil War does exists in many of us, but it can only exist as “learned memory.” We did not experience events, but we have been privy to a number of “feeds” that are truly a part of our memory. These “feeds” are part of our life experience. Whether a person is exposed only to one viewing of Gone With the Wind or a multitude of “Civil War feeds,” the different “feeds” have bearing on the way that we reflect on the history of the war… and the way that we relate that history to others.

Yet, before I get too far away from this concept of “feeds,” keep in mind that raw data delivered to us is not raw data received and left unprocessed. As a part of the cognitive process, this data is processed. Inevitably, we will turn-over the data, in our heads, to make something of it. Some refer to this as transderivational search (TDS), which is an automatic and unconscious state of internal focus and processing (I’m intrigued with even this incomplete defintion available at Wikipedia). The point is, however, that TDS is still part of the development of a person’s “memory.”

The potential problems of this process will be better left for another post, but when it comes to this “learned memory,” there may be more to the impact of “things” in the way we relate history to others. If our history comes from what we learn, and we relate this history to another, does the original “feed” of history received by us retain its original state in the process of relating to another? In all probability, we will distort it, and if we do, even ever so slightly, how will that carry down?

Nice way of framing the issue. I’ve always thought of the historical project of memory as little more than an extension of how we, as individuals, handle our own pasts. Take any significant event in our lifetime and we will find that our interpretations evolve over time. The conditions/context in which we remember change, which forces us to reevaluate. This is particularly true when dealing with traumatic moments. Sometimes we find a need (for whatever reason) to focus on certain aspects of the event and sometimes we even need to forget other aspects. We are constantly rewriting our pasts – it is one of the most human activities that we engage in.

It’s a shame that the blogger in question is unable to step outside of his own insecurities when it comes to the literature on Civil War memory. Actually, I don’t believe for a minute that he has read any of it or spent significant time with it.

I do believe that the way we look at things changes over time and it makes sense that the changes are accomodatating to our interests at those particular points in our lives. However, I had not thought of the way we look at historical things (outside our own lifetime and experienced memory) as tools to handle our own experienced pasts. That’s an interesting line of thinking and I’ll have to give it some consideration.

I think the majority of my time spent examining historical memory is focused on the way people identify with the past outside their lifetime and how, because of that bond (this TDS thing really intrigues me now) that develops (whether familial or not), they relate history to others. The manner in which narrative is delivered is another thing that I want to look into and I’m already working on a related post.

Regarding the thoughts of others regarding Civil War memory, I think that some need to take some time to examine the problems presented in other, less personal blocks of history and the way that those blocks are remembered. Sometimes we have to step away from that which we take so personal (a pivotal word) and look at something less personal in order to realize potential problems in the way humans generally remember history, and more importantly, relate it to others. Of course, there is no guarantee that after examining other blocks of history that a person can come away with the ability to reapproach the old sensitive blocks of history with a new ability to grasp and appreciate possibilities.

Setting aside the “memory” of the Civil War, I wonder… what modern political/social agendas would be served, if any, when it comes to Revolutionary War memory? It would seem that there might be no agenda served in investigating such memory, other than that of shaking away that which has encrusted itself over historical facts. Study of historical memory without agenda is possible, and it’s being done. Why, therefore, is it necessary to criticize the study of Civil War memory so as to condemn all who engage in the practice as driven by agenda?

Robert, you pose some good points as does my friend Richard in his insightful post. I think one recurring issue in regards to the debate over memory is why some people believe that others don’t have the right to remember things as they want. I always like to use to personal recollection as an example. Take someone’s father; they have a first-hand personal perspective of their dad. They may believe that he was the greatest guy in the world. They are filled with fond memories of the man. On the other hand, the people that he worked with every day think the guy was a real jerk. They hate his guts and look back on him with contempt. Both interpretations totally conflict with one another, but both were absolutely right. Who’s judgment would you say is more credible.

Perhaps the problem isn’t so much how one wants to “remember” history, but the way they use that memory to spread their line of thinking to others. I rather like the line of revealing possibilities rather than anchored in concretes. Of course, problems will arise when when one line of thinking threatens another.

You mention a story exhibiting first-hand perspective, but that is different than what my focus is here. Personal perspective as a matter of personal experience and perspective as a matter of learned memory (even that which is fed to us over a series of generations) are two different things.

Robert, — Your last comment is the crucial sticking point in all of this. The notion that history can and often is used for political purposes is difficult to acknowledge for many, especially when it comes to a history that continues to be “felt” by so many. The problem with critics of memory studies is that they reduce everyone involved to a silly and meaningless category that tells us more about the critic than anything about the range of studies and conclusions that can be found in the literature.

My interest in memory stems from what I mentioned in my earlier comment concerning how each of us continually revises our individual pasts. I am intrigued by the notion that this also takes place on a broader level. The reason I value your site more than others who claim an emotional attachment to the past is that you never lose sight of the importance of a healthy skepticism when handling historical narrative and memory.

Kevin, Yes, exactly. I don’t see the purpose of mocking historical memory studies or placing all those who engage in the practice under one flat generalization; that being motivated by political or social agenda. It’s rediculous, not to mention curiously funny considering the fight by some within the new era Confederate remembrance to shed other generalizations. Generalizations in response to generalizations; it’s an odd cycle… and generally nothing gets accomplished. Ultimately, if we are really interested in understanding the past and those who lived in it, we need to be more conscious of all that goes with it. Skepticism, I think, plays a critical role in gaining a more complete understanding.

I understand your point Robert, but I guess what I meant is WHO (of the two examples that I cited) will be the more credible ‘reference’ source years from now. Of course the historian writing something positive would go with the kid’s POV and the opposite intention would favor the co-worker. Both are equally valid and both have a place in memory. Would you agree? So I guess the real dilemma is what is the majority’s POV, what is that POV based upon, and does one attempt to negate the other. In other words we must acknowledge BOTH kinds of memories whether we agree with them or not because both sources are credible in their own right. The key is finding a balance and respecting the each other’s rights to acknowledge either side. There is no wrong answer here and that’s what drives me nuts about the whole debate.

Michael, I think we’ve seen that “balance” does not lead to respect from the “other side” of the discussion/argument. Despite some excellent efforts by historians to be objective and present some fantastic studies, they still get tagged with the “revisionist historian” label. Either that, or they are labeled unnecessarily as “liberals” driven by political or social agendas. It’s rediculous, but more than likely, it’s going to be that way as long as one side sees new historical studies and even the process of historical analysis as a threat to their particular side of the story.

All, Just as reminder, and in relation to this post, my challenge has still remained unanswered from an earlier post. I’ve already made my point that “Civil War Memory” is not limited to “Civil War Confederate Memory,” and despite the undeserved label of “revisionists” under the banner of liberalism and social and political agendas, historians are quite aware of the flaws in “Won Cause” mythology of the war. For those who don’t realize this and think its all about “Confederate bashing,” all they need to do is increase the depth and range of their readings.

Robert, — There are a number of areas that need to be explored along the lines that I believe you are pushing. Ulysses S. Grant was a giant of the nineteenth century and yet he has been lost in our national memory. My guess is that most visitors to Washington have no idea who they are looking at when approaching the Capitol Building from the National Mall side. His public funeral was attended by tens of thousands. What happened to Grant? Luckily, Joan Waugh’s study of Grant and historical memory is set for publication this summer with UNC Press so much of the story will be laid out.

The other area that is ripe for interpretation is the importance of the concept of Union within the United States both during and after the war. I just returned from lunch with a well-known historian who is actually writing a book on this. Part of the problem is locating the concept of Union beyond our present historiography.

On the one hand, the DiLorenzo crowd can only go so far as to interpret Lincoln’s concept of nationalism along sinister lines and in a way which satisfies their own political agenda rather than a purely historical interest in how Americans actually perceived their nation. Than there is the crowd that has difficulty acknowledging nationalism in a post-Vietnam age. I think this is a concept that has almost entirely been lost to us, but it is one that needs serious study if we are to understand how Americans were able to stomach four years of brutal war. A great place to start is Russell McClintock’s new book on how northerners responded to secession, but we need much more.

Kevin, Yes, this is the general direction. Of course, I figured you would be aware of different points that would fit the bill. I do believe that one of the big points that sticks with me from Hist. grad school was the way that “Won Cause” (my terminology) memory in some made the Union out to be more than what it was for the Southern African-American population. Of course, there are a number of articles that I remember focused on the time of the war, and then the general neglect after the war. There was this one article that I really remember that examined the role of blacks in the Union Navy. An excellent piece that examined the realignment of the social structure aboard ships. I can’t recall the author.

Speaking of Lincoln, are you aware of two different versions of John B. Baldwin’s meeting with Lincoln? One was transcribed around 1866 (and it’s on the Valley of the Shadow site). For some reason, I can’t find the other, but remember several years ago comparing the two and noticing differences in the way that Baldwin relate events.